The death of a school's tradition?

#78
#78
Vercingetorix said:
"States' rights" is the fig leaf that modern southerners press over their junk to pretend that the south didn't secede specifically to protect slavery.

The north certainly didn't go war to abolish it, but the south did go to war to preserve it. Nobody goes to war over something as theoretical as "states' rights." You go to war over money. Slavery was money, for the south. The north went to war over money too; the south was the economic engine of the United States and the north weren't just going to let them walk off without a fight.
Click to expand...
Based on this federal law should be evenly distributed to all 50 states.
 
#79
#79
hmanvolfan said:
Based on this federal law should be evenly distributed to all 50 states.
Click to expand...

It's probably as evenly distributed as it can be given the monstrously shortsighted decision to give each state two seats in the Senate, regardless of population. My local Irish pub probably has as many people on its mailing list as Montana does citizens. And yet somehow my pub doesn't have two US senators.
 
#80
#80
Vercingetorix said:
It's probably as evenly distributed as it can be given the monstrously shortsighted decision to give each state two seats in the Senate, regardless of population. My local Irish pub probably has as many people on its mailing list as Montana does citizens. And yet somehow my pub doesn't have two US senators.
Click to expand...
I rest my case. The states still have laws that supercede federal laws. Example is some states already nullifying the health care act in court.
 
#81
#81
My father found records where my great great great great great grandfather was sold and bought in cross plains, Tn for $2,000 dollars which was big money back then. That auction block is still there to this day.

Slaves were big money like cattle. Sad, but it's the truth.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#82
#82
Coach Grizz said:
My father found records where my great great great great great grandfather was sold and bought in cross plains, Tn for $2,000 dollars which was big money back then. That auction block is still there to this day.

Slaves were big money like cattle. Sad, but it's the truth.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
If Ole Miss gets rid of Colonel Reb, the confederate flag and Dixie why doesn't Cross Plains get rid of the auction block? That seems even more offensive.
 
#83
#83
hmanvolfan said:
I rest my case. The states still have laws that supercede federal laws. Example is some states already nullifying the health care act in court.
Click to expand...

What do you mean, you rest your case? I wasn't even aware we were having an argument. The slave states went to war with the north because slavery was such a critical part of their economy. If the modern south thought the health care act was an equivalent threat to its way of life and economy, they'd go to war too. But they don't, because it obviously isn't.
 
#84
#84
Vercingetorix said:
What do you mean, you rest your case? I wasn't even aware we were having an argument. The slave states went to war with the north because slavery was such a critical part of their economy. If the modern south thought the health care act was an equivalent threat to its way of life and economy, they'd go to war too. But they don't, because it obviously isn't.
Click to expand...
You introduced the fig leaf statement to rebut my states rights argument so that would seem to me to be an argument. Anyways, I'm not a civil war expert and am too tired to start the requisite research so I'll say goodnight and hopefully won't engage in any more civil war debates any time soon. As far as I know there aren't any states left that allow slavery to exist.
 
#85
#85
hmanvolfan said:
If Ole Miss gets rid of Colonel Reb, the confederate flag and Dixie why doesn't Cross Plains get rid of the auction block? That seems even more offensive.
Click to expand...

Are they still selling people on that auction block? If not then it could have incredible historical value. I would actually like to see it. Even though slavery was horrible, erasing all evidence of something that had such an effect on this country would be crazy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#86
#86
Coach Grizz said:
Well, from what I learned. Protecting states rights was protecting slavery....
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Whatever one wants to believe the cause of the Civil war was, it doesn't change the fact that the average foot soldier in Southern armies was typically a farm boy that couldn't own a slave if he wanted too. Many were too poor to buy shoes (that is how Gettysburg started, Confederate soldiers trying to find shoes). These men were not risking a better than 50% chance of death so a rich guy could own slaves, he was fighting because a foreign army was marching on his home. Rebels...you know ALL of us were Rebels 90 years before this war, we were Rebels against a foreign power telling us what to do.
Anti Rebel rhetoric is akin to the Anti military sentiment during and after Vietnam (as if the marines and soldiers went to Vietnam for the hell of it to murder babies). Forget about all the political BS and consider the tens of thousands of men that were defending their homes from invasion. In this regard I fully support Ole Miss traditions and we all should. It is part of all our history.
 
#87
#87
Vercingetorix said:
"States' rights" is the fig leaf that modern southerners press over their junk to pretend that the south didn't secede specifically to protect slavery.

The north certainly didn't go war to abolish it, but the south did go to war to preserve it. Nobody goes to war over something as theoretical as "states' rights." You go to war over money. Slavery was money, for the south. The north went to war over money too; the south was the economic engine of the United States and the north weren't just going to let them walk off without a fight.
Click to expand...

The Rebublican party was formed by northern industrialist that wanted to continue to be supported by the feds through the tariffs on Southern ports. The abolitionist movement was a "fringe" part of the party (sort of like the anti abortion fringe in the party now). and not a huge influence on Republican policy. They were about money.) With the election of Lincoln (who wasn't even on the ballet in many southern states) the wealthy slave owners feared that the policy would be one of non expansion of slavery into the western territories. They knew their immediate interest were not under assault. May I recommend "When in the Course of Human Events" by Charles Adams, one of the worlds foremost authorities on taxation (and native New Yorker) for a deeper look at the causes of the war. As you know, the moral issue of slavery was not used to justify the war until 1863, when world opinion was against the Feds and the very real possibility of British involvement on part of the South was feared.
 
#88
#88
tvolsfan said:
I'm just glad Volunteers isn't a Civil War name.
Click to expand...

Our Tennessee Volunteers refers to Andrew Jackson and his Tennessee Volunteers going to NO and kicking the redcoats butt. However, there were numerous companies of "Tennessee Volunteers" that wore the grey in the Army of Tennessee and the Army of Northern Virginia. So one could make the argument that it IS a Civil war name. They may be wrong but they could still make the claim.

I can see a day where a movement comes along that wants to do away with any military themed team name. They came for Ole Miss this time, don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility they will come for us one day.

It has already started:
http://www.volnation.com/forum/tenn...oks-tells-uninformed-vols-nickname-civil.html
 
Last edited:
#90
#90
gasguy98 said:
Our Tennessee Volunteers refers to Andrew Jackson and his Tennessee Volunteers going to NO and kicking the redcoats butt. However, there were numerous companies of "Tennessee Volunteers" that wore the grey in the Army of Tennessee and the Army of Northern Virginia. So one could make the argument that it IS a Civil war name. They may be wrong but they could still make the claim.

I can see a day where a movement comes along that wants to do away with any military themed team name. They came for Ole Miss this time, don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility they will come for us one day.

It has already started:
http://www.volnation.com/forum/tenn...oks-tells-uninformed-vols-nickname-civil.html
Click to expand...
Nothing started, the guy made an idiotic comment.
 
#91
#91
gasguy98 said:
The Rebublican party was formed by northern industrialist that wanted to continue to be supported by the feds through the tariffs on Southern ports. The abolitionist movement was a "fringe" part of the party (sort of like the anti abortion fringe in the party now). and not a huge influence on Republican policy. They were about money.) With the election of Lincoln (who wasn't even on the ballet in many southern states) the wealthy slave owners feared that the policy would be one of non expansion of slavery into the western territories. They knew their immediate interest were not under assault. May I recommend "When in the Course of Human Events" by Charles Adams, one of the worlds foremost authorities on taxation (and native New Yorker) for a deeper look at the causes of the war. As you know, the moral issue of slavery was not used to justify the war until 1863, when world opinion was against the Feds and the very real possibility of British involvement on part of the South was feared.
Click to expand...


Lincoln, in his inaugural speech, stated that he had no intentions of abolishing slavery. This, and like you stated above(bolded) are two of the arguments I use when someone claims that the war was fought solely to free the slaves.
 
#92
#92
gasguy98 said:
The Rebublican party was formed by northern industrialist that wanted to continue to be supported by the feds through the tariffs on Southern ports. The abolitionist movement was a "fringe" part of the party (sort of like the anti abortion fringe in the party now). and not a huge influence on Republican policy. They were about money.) With the election of Lincoln (who wasn't even on the ballet in many southern states) the wealthy slave owners feared that the policy would be one of non expansion of slavery into the western territories. They knew their immediate interest were not under assault. May I recommend "When in the Course of Human Events" by Charles Adams, one of the worlds foremost authorities on taxation (and native New Yorker) for a deeper look at the causes of the war. As you know, the moral issue of slavery was not used to justify the war until 1863, when world opinion was against the Feds and the very real possibility of British involvement on part of the South was feared.
Click to expand...

CountVolcula said:
Lincoln, in his inaugural speech, stated that he had no intentions of abolishing slavery. This, and like you stated above(bolded) are two of the arguments I use when someone claims that the war was fought solely to free the slaves.
Click to expand...


That's not his point. It's the defense I always here, but I don't think anyone here is arguing that Abe Lincoln and all the northerners were fighting for the noble cause of ridding the country of slavery.
 
Last edited:
#94
#94
Coach Grizz said:
It don't bother me, I come from a very small southern town and I've been around "good ol boys" all my life and that stuff don't bother me. But if they put their hands on me its on like a chicken bone. Hell I'm black and even I talk with a drawl!! That will be the next thing to go is the southern drawl. Soon everyone down here will talk like Yankees or fake ass californians!!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

God forbid americans talk with proper grammar
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#95
#95
droski said:
God forbid americans talk with proper grammar
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Shut it you fake ass Californian, Americans should be capitalized and there should be a period at the end of your sentence.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top